In China, the Dead Can Marry

Or so the NYT reports:

". . .To ensure a son’s contentment in the afterlife, some grieving parents will search for a dead woman to be his bride and, once a corpse is obtained, bury the pair together as a married couple.

'They happen pretty often, especially when teenagers or younger people die,' said Yang Husheng, 48, . .

The rural folk custom, startling to Western sensibilities, is known as minghun, or afterlife marriage. Scholars who have studied it say it is rooted in the Chinese form of ancestor worship, which holds that people continue to exist after death and that the living are obligated to tend to their wants — or risk the consequences. Traditional Chinese beliefs also hold that an unmarried life is incomplete, which is why some parents worry that an unmarried dead son may be an unhappy one. ."

posted by maggie at 8:40 AM | Link | 1 comments

Pew Poll: Polygamy

71 percent of Americans say polygamy is "never justified." 2 percent say it is "always justified" and 12 percent say it is "sometimes justified." (37 percent of Americans say sex between unmarried people is never justified).
posted by maggie at 8:38 AM | Link | 0 comments

World Opinion

Pew Forum just released a survey on pentecostals and charismatics ("renewalists") that also survey a variety of countries on social issues (homosexuality, divorce, abortion). There's a fascinating chart of world opinion on these issues, e.g.: In the U.S.: 50 percent of Americans say homosexuality is never morally justified, 29 percent say the same about drinking alcohol, only 11 percent feel that way about divorce. In Chile: 56 percent oppose drinking but only 32 percent oppose gay sex, and 21 percent oppose divorce. In Kenya, 98 percent say homosexuality is never justified, 67 percent oppose alcohol, and 61 percent say divorce is never justified. In parts of India (relatively high in Christians): 72 percent oppose homosexuality, 69 percent oppose alcohol and 55 percent divorce. Also:

". . .In most of the countries surveyed (all except the U.S. and South Korea), large majorities of the general population say that abortion can never be justified, and renewalists tend to share this view. The percentage of pentecostals who say that abortion can never be justified ranges from 64% in the U.S. to 97% in the Philippines. Similarly, the percentage of charismatics who say that abortion is never justified ranges from 57% in the U.S. to 96% in the Philippines. . ."

Study Methodology here: http://pewforum.org/docs/print.php?DocID=163
posted by maggie at 4:50 PM | Link | 0 comments

Dem Confusion

Does the new incoming Democratic leader of the New York state Senate, Malcolm Smith support gay marriage? He's not telling.

Eliot Spitzer (who is running for NY Governor), however, is telling. At the Empire Pride dinner last night he called gay marriage a civil right, but also emphasized protecting religious liberty as a basic civil right:

". . ."No New Yorker should be deprived of the right to marry the person of their choice, regardless of gender," the Democrat who is currently Attorney General said.

"This is not about forcing any religion to perform or recognize gay marriage. It's simply about permitting gay and lesbian couples the right to live in stable, long-term married relationships.". . .

"We must protect the rights of people of faith and their institutions," he said. "If I'm elected next month, I will make sure the government does not infringe on religious choice and practice. This, too, is a sacred civil right - part of the pantheon of values that define and protects all civil rights."

posted by maggie at 11:31 AM | Link | 0 comments

Presbyterian Minister Defends Performing Gay Wedding

Rev. Janet Edwards' Oct 4 op ed, "I plead innocent: Same-sex marriages can reflect God's covenant with creation, too":

"Last year I had the privilege of presiding at the wedding of two women in a beautiful ceremony in McKees Rocks. Wedding ceremonies are deeply spiritual affairs, affirming the love between two people before God and their commitment to one another in this life. Nancy and Brenda's joyous wedding was no different, and I feel blessed to have been part of their celebration.

It's also why, with my pretrial hearing set to begin tomorrow, I plan to plead "innocent" to the charges brought against me by the Pittsburgh Presbytery for overseeing the marriage ceremony of a same-sex couple.

I know there are colleagues within the Presbyterian Church who disagree with my actions. But it is clear to me that my decision to perform Nancy and Brenda's wedding was inspired by the Holy Spirit and is faithful to my pastoral call. . ."

posted by maggie at 10:38 AM | Link | 2 comments

About That California Appeals Court Decision

I've read the 2-1 California appeals court decision on SSM.

A few observations: First the dissent, like the dissent in New York, is remarkably static. The argument of gay marriage advocates has stopped developing. Many people find this developed case for SSM persuasive, inspiring, and even irrefutable. They appear to be incapable of responding in any new way to arguments on the "other side", because they do not seem to be capable of hearing the other side has a case.

Second, this court is very articulate about recognizing what ought to be an obvious proposition but really hasn't always been: gay marriage represents a fundamental change to our understanding of marriage. The opposite-sex thing is not an "entry requirement" into something separate called marriage, it is (for better or worse) an integral part of what people understand the substance of marriage to be. Getting judges to recognize this fact seems to be the key to winning these cases. Once courts recognize they are being asked to fundamentally alter marriage (rather than merely extend it) they recognize as well that this is not a judicial function.

Third, I think the majority was wrong (like the Connecticut trial court) in holding "tradition" is a sufficient rational reason for separating marriage from civil unions. The majority noted, but did not actively consider, the argument that the state's interest in marriage is procreation and paternity. (The two judges seem to partly but not clearly rest its decision on the idea that marriage stands for the idea that men and women, who sometimes make children without specific intention, should raise their children together.) California's Attorney General was not willing to make a case that marriage has anything to do with generativity, and the court accepted the AG's argument that bowing to the traditional understanding of marriage was a good enough reason in itself. If true, it means legislators can rationally base laws on the irrational (but not animus-related) prejudices of the people of California. Not good enough, I think. One has to be able to name a possible reason for the classification employed by the law. This court was more willing to uphold the marriage law than to name any principle upon which these laws could rationally rest.

Finally, the concurrence was notable for directly raising the issue of 'separation of marriage and state.' Our ideas of marriage are deeply rooted in our religious traditions and we cannot honestly proceed without noting that fact, said the judge. Once we note it, the judge says, we may then need to consider whether marriage as a civic institution is sustainable. The next big marriage debate.
posted by maggie at 9:00 AM | Link | 1 comments

What is the Rational Basis for Marriage?

It's mysterious to Ann Althouse but posting the question yesterday prompts 312 comments. . .so far. The Volokh Conspiracy readers comment vigorously on California Court of Appeals decision here.
posted by maggie at 6:57 AM | Link | 5 comments

Canadian Tories Propose SSM Religious Liberty Protections

If they can't reopen the SSM debate:

"The Conservative government is planning measures, including a Defence of Religions Act, to allow public officials, such as Justices of the Peace, to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

The measures are also intended to protect the free-speech rights of religious leaders and others who criticize homosexual behaviour or refuse to do business with gay-rights organizations, The Globe and Mail has learned.

Any legislation would be brought forward only if the government loses the motion this fall to reopen the debate on same-sex marriage. All indications are that the motion, which would authorize the government to introduce legislation to repeal the same-sex marriage law passed by Parliament last year, will be defeated by a combination of Opposition MPs supported by a few Conservatives. . ."

(One early and youthful response: If the question is: should religious people in Canada be able to criticize homosexuality, the editor of one University of Alberta student journal says, no of course not:

". . .Two of the more salient tidbits of the Conservative’s proposed act, according to yesterday’s Globe and Mail, would allow church groups to decline renting their halls for gay-marriage receptions, and allow a Justice of the Peace to refuse to marry a couple based on his or her religious convictions. It also includes measures that 'allow individuals to criticize homosexual activity because it contravenes religious teachings.'

In essence, they're asking for an escape clause for intolerance. Public criticism of a person’s private life is absolutely unacceptable, unless said private life jeopardizes the public sphere. . ."

Cooler heads and all that.)
posted by maggie at 6:39 AM | Link | 2 comments

Marriage or Fraud?

About the new tax advantages for California domestic partners, Richard Samuelson of the Claremont Institute wonders:

". . .Who verifies that these "registered domestic partners" are in fact couples and not two otherwise unmarried adults who seek the tax advantages of filing taxes jointly for a spell. (I presume ending a domestic partnership is rather easier than ending a marriage, even in a state with no fault divorce).

Once again I ask, might a shrewd laywer advise clients to sign someone with whom he does a great deal of business as a domestic partner, and thereby allow all sales to go through tax free? What happens when I transfer the deed on my house to a person who is, in law, my domestic partner and he transfers me money. Is that a taxable transaction?

These actions would be fraudulent, but who is going to enforce the law here? How?"

posted by maggie at 5:27 AM | Link | 3 comments

TORY LEADER ON THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE (and civil partnerships)

from David Cameron's speech at the Conservative Party Conference:
...There's something special about marriage.

It's not about religion.

It's not about morality.

It's about commitment.

When you stand up there, in front of your friends and your family, in front of the world, whether it's in a church or anywhere else, what you're doing really means something.

Pledging yourself to another means doing something brave and important.

You are making a commitment.

You are publicly saying: it's not just about me, me me anymore.

It is about we--together, the two of us, through thick and thin.

That really matters.

And by the way, it means something whether you're a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man.

That's why we were right to support civil partnerships, and I'm proud of that.
more
posted by Eve at 2:01 AM | Link | 0 comments

California Court of Appeals

The California Court of Appeals has just (2:00 Pacific Time) issued a decision upholding the state's marriage law in a 2-1 vote. The decision is available online here.
posted by William Duncan at 5:06 PM | Link | 1 comments

British Poll: Sex, Marriage, Kids, Guilt

A BBC radio poll:

Of the 1,000 adults questioned, 90% said the ideal age to have children was under 30 and 43% aspired to a lifelong commitment with one partner.

But 80% of those surveyed for BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour said unhappily married couples should not stay together just for the sake of their children.

And 38% said the best way to care for a child was for the mother to stay home.

It also found 41% of women felt guilty about placing a pre-school child in childcare compared with 20% of men. . .

38% of men and women felt that a mother at home is the ideal way in which to care for pre-school children, as opposed to only 0.3% for a father staying at home as the childcarer.

When it came to housework, 45% of women and 57% of men reported sharing household chores equally.

posted by maggie at 7:31 AM | Link | 0 comments

Medved: SSM Will Weaken Marital Norms of Fidelity

Michael Medved makes an argument here I've heard from many people, that accepting gays as married will change social norms of fidelity--but with a twist. It's not because they are gay, but because they are men:

". . .Gay male relationships are different by their very nature --- generally (if not always) lacking the civilizing, long-term, romantic perspective that women naturally bring to a couple. That difference also emerges in the disgusting instant messages recently published and involving Congressman Mark Foley and a 16-year-old page. Yes, Foley obviously abuses his power in a shamelessly predatory way, but the boy in his responses obviously encourages the libidinous lawmaker. It is difficult to imagine any 16 year old girl providing equivalent encouragement without assuming some emotional or romantic attachment on her part. Of all the stomach-churning aspects of the Clinton-Lewinsky association, perhaps the most pathetic and unsavory involved Monica's frequently expressed starry-eyed infatuation and happily-ever-after dreams about the President of the United States. She even reported on their conversations, and her ardent hopes, concerning a possible future opportunity to live with him, after he left the White House and abandoned Hillary.

No one would assume that the teenaged page who flirted with Mark Foley entertained any similar fantasies. Not all opposite sex relationships include commitment and long-term romance, and not all same sex relationships lack such commitment and enduring love, but it’s obvious (and statistically provable) that male-female connections are vastly more likely to produce lasting consequences (including children) as opposed to fleeting excitement and titillation.

This inarguable distinction relates, of course, to the ongoing debate about same sex marriage. The endlessly retreated arguments by advocates for marital redefinition begin with the assertion that "we don’t want to change the institution of marriage—we just want to expand it." But expanding social sanction and governmental recognition to include relationships like the one described in this week’s New York Times Magazine (where a partner brings home two other guys after bar-hopping, and the 'ethicist' doesn’t even question his behavior) involves an obvious change in marital ideals.

Gay advocates can argue that enlarging our notion of 'marriage' to include such late night adventures might prove energizing and enriching for the allegedly tired, old institution. But no rational observer can claim that with such fashionable, cosmopolitan up-to-date adjustments meant to accommodate the very different nature of gay male relationships, that the institution of matrimony would remain unaltered."

posted by maggie at 9:19 AM | Link | 9 comments

Calif Permits Domestic Partners to File Taxes Jointly

This change in California tax law is described as an equality measure, but if it is optional for domestic partners, it would actually be a significant financial advantage: file jointly when it lowers your bill, singly when that would decrease your tax bill. (Married couples are penalized, at least in the federal code, for filing separately):

"On the final day to consider legislation, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a measure allowing domestic partners to file joint state tax returns but vetoed a bill extending the time a mother can legally surrender her baby. . ."

posted by maggie at 9:08 AM | Link | 3 comments

New Scottish Domestic Partnership Data

From 365gay.com, gay domestic partnerships off to a slow start in Scotland:

"Civil partnerships got off to a slow start when they became legal in Scotland last December but gay and lesbian couples now appear to be making up for lost time.

Only a handful of same-sex couples registered in the weeks after the law went into effect. But in the first quarter of this year 259 partnerships were registered in the first quarter of this year. And that rose to 315 in the latest quarter newly released figures show.

About half of those registering were female, Registrar General Duncan Macniven said. . ."

posted by maggie at 9:05 AM | Link | 0 comments

Ireland to Rule on SSM/AP

Several scholars I know are testifying as expert witnesses in this Irish SSM case, a sort of internationalizing of the legal battle:

"DUBLIN, Ireland A lesbian couple who were legally married in Canada launched a landmark lawsuit Tuesday seeking to win the same legal rights and financial benefits as married heterosexuals in Ireland.

Ann Louise Gilligan and Katherine Zappone — who were married in Vancouver, British Columbia, in September 2003 within months of the legalization of same-sex marriage there — are the first gay couple in Ireland to go to court to seek state recognition of a foreign marriage. . .

Their legal battle began in 2004 when they challenged the Irish tax authorities' refusal to recognize the existence of their Canadian marriage. This meant they had to file tax separately, a more expensive option, and were unable to claim their full deductions for their properties. . .

The case, if successful, would have major implications for Ireland's unmarried couples, both heterosexual and homosexual, in this predominantly Catholic country of 4.2 million. The 2001 census identified 77,600 households involving unmarried partners — among them 1,300 homosexual couples — who must pay higher rates of income and inheritance taxes than married couples. . ."

posted by maggie at 9:02 AM | Link | 0 comments

Rhode Island Update

The Boston Globe reports same-sex Rhode Island couples plan to marry in Massachusetts; the Rhode Island attorney general says these marriages will not be recognized in Rhode Island. Lawsuits ahead.

Hofstra Prof. Johanna Grossman in her Findlaw family law column on the Rhode Island decision explores with approval the legal fiction adopted by the Massachusetts high court: that without an express ruling it couldn't really tell whether Rhode Island permitted gay marriage, and urges Rhode Island to recognize these Massachusetts marriages out of rspect for "comity."
posted by maggie at 8:33 PM | Link | 0 comments

New Poll: Wisconsin Marriage Amendment Winning Big

A 365gay.com story Oct 2 on a new Wisconsin poll on the state marriage amendment:

"A statewide poll released Monday appears to show that supporters of a proposed amendment barring the recognition of same-sex couples are gaining widespread support throughout the state.

Fifty-three percent of respondents said they would vote for the amendment while nearly 39 percent said they would oppose it. Nearly 8 percent of respondents didn't know or refused to answer,

The survey was conducted by Diversified Research for WisPolitics.com. The poll was taken between 20-21 and has a margin of error or plus or minus 4 percentage points. . ."

posted by maggie at 8:31 PM | Link | 0 comments

A Constitional Right to Sex Toys?

Inquiring minds may want to know, but the Supreme Court isn't telling, at least not this term.
posted by maggie at 8:56 PM | Link | 1 comments

Supreme Court Rules SSM Ad Case Moot/AP

An Associated Press story:

Court declines challenge to election law Mon Oct 2, 1:45 PM ET

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider a lawsuit by a conservative group blocked from airing ads about same-sex marriage.

Last spring, the Christian Civic League of Maine attempted to run ads about the state's two U.S. senators, but a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., halted the effort and the Supreme Court refused to step in at the time. On Monday, the court issued a one-line order saying the appeal is dismissed as moot.

Federal election law bars corporations or labor unions from paying for any radio or TV broadcast referring to a candidate for federal office within 30 days of a federal primary election or 60 days of a general election.

The league had wanted to run the ads in time for the Senate debate on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The proposal was defeated June 7.

The proposed ad asked the public to call Maine's two senators, Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and urge them to vote for the amendment. Snowe is running unopposed.

The Christian Civic League asked the Supreme Court to consider whether the prohibition violates the group's free speech rights.

The FEC and key lawmakers in Congress said the group's appeal is moot because the preliminary injunction sought last spring would no longer have any effect. The league asked for the injunction against "electioneering communication" provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

The case is the Christian Civic League of Maine v. Federal Election Commission, 05-1447

posted by maggie at 8:33 PM | Link | 0 comments

HHS: Healthy Marriage and Fatherhood Grants

The $100 million or so in grants the federal government plans to give in order to increase marriage among low-income couples will apparently be announced this week, at this website:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/index.html.

posted by maggie at 6:13 PM | Link | 0 comments

New Study: One in Ten British Men Have Used Prostitute

Actually, its one out of ten men who visited a U.K. sexual health clinic, so that's probably biased upwards. More details from the news release:

"Almost half of men who pay for sex already have a partner, reveals a small survey reported in the journal Sexually Transmitted Infections. . .

Two thirds said that they had paid for sex in the preceding year, and around one in four said that they repeatedly used prostitutes. But the time frame ranged from 2 days to 30 years previously. . .

Almost half (43%) said that they had a current partner when they had paid for the sex.And more than half (56%) who said that they had had unprotected vaginal sex already had a partner. . ."

Click here to view the paper in full: http://press.psprings.co.uk/sti/october/364_st20537.pdf
posted by maggie at 10:05 AM | Link | 1 comments

No to No-Fault Divorce/NYT

Prof. Robin Wilson has an op ed in this Sunday's New York Times opposing pure nofault divorce. (Aficionados will notice a reference to "Marriage and the Law" our latest statement, to which Robin is a signatory):

Let Divorce Off the Hook, NYT October 1, 2006
By ROBIN FRETWELL WILSON

NEW YORK is one of the few states without unilateral no-fault divorce, which means that New York couples can get a no-fault divorce only by mutual agreement.
Judith Kaye, New York State’s chief judge, set out to change all that. Earlier this year, the matrimonial commission she formed recommended that the state enact full unilateral no-fault divorce. Judge Kaye highlighted the proposal in her annual address about the state of the judiciary, and the idea was promptly endorsed by the New York Bar Association and the Women’s Bar Association, as well as major newspapers.

Despite all that establishment grease, no-fault divorce promptly went nowhere. While a bill was introduced in Albany, the Legislature went home in June without negotiating or making any progress on the specifics of the legislation.
A similar thing happened when the American Law Institute, an influential organization of lawyers, academics and judges, called on states to strip all remaining vestiges of fault from family law, even as a factor in alimony or property distribution. But six years later, not a single state has passed new legislation to eliminate fault in family law.

Meanwhile, this summer, Louisiana became one of the first states in years to pass a major no-fault revision, in the opposite direction: creating a new one-year waiting period for no-fault divorce when couples have children younger than 18 years old, unless there is a determination of abuse in the marriage. And a group of more than 100 legal and family scholars just released a report urging legislators to consider passing extended waiting periods for no-fault divorce.

What accounts for the new resistance to no-fault? Reasons include the growing evidence that divorce often hurts children, feminists’ renewed recognition of the importance of legal protection for mothers raising children, and concerns about the economic disparities created by differences in marriage rates. Gay marriage advocates have also played a role in this shift, by calling attention to 'easy divorce,' which they say is the real threat to marriage, not same-sex unions.

But another reason is Americans' intimate familiarity with divorce and its consequences. As a family law scholar, I have long written about the problems with divorce, driven largely by the scholarly evidence. This past year, I joined the ranks of Americans with personal experience.

While I was living in Maryland, my husband, from whom I am now divorced, assaulted me (an assault for which he has since been convicted). On the whole, I had been impressed by how Maryland protects victims of domestic violence. But I also came to understand why the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women has opposed Judge Kaye’s unilateral divorce proposals.

When no-fault divorce advocates say that family law should pay no attention to the reasons why a marriage ends, what does this mean in practice for modern women like me who have careers and have built assets? We are told that we should in effect have to pay our batterers for the privilege of divorcing them. That seems to me, as to many other Americans, not only bad social policy, but deeply and profoundly wrong.
Americans care why marriages break apart. Infidelity, violence, abandonment matter. This does not mean we must uncritically embrace the old fault-based divorce laws. It does suggest we need a prudent and realistic search for new approaches to enacting our shared moral understanding of marriage.

Marriage should be a place where spouses can count on promises of fidelity and where spouses (and children) are physically protected. Under current New York law, fault matters to property distribution and the determination of alimony only in those exceedingly rare instances of extreme brutality that shocks the conscience. But fault includes more than extremely outrageous behavior.

If New York legislators go ahead and give one spouse a unilateral right to a no-fault divorce, they need to lower the threshold for considering fault in property distribution and alimony awards. Without a more sensible threshold, there can be no norms of decency within marriages and family relationships.

Contrary to the American Law Institute and to Judge Kaye, we should recognize that often someone is at fault, and that needs to matter in the dissolution of the marriage if the law is to do justice.

Robin Fretwell Wilson, a visiting law professor at Washington & Lee University, is the editor of 'Reconceiving the Family: Critique on the American Law Institute's Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution.'

Prof. Wilson's edited volume critiquing ALI's Principles of FAmily Dissolution, "Reconceiving the Family" is published by Cambridage University Press.
posted by maggie at 11:05 PM | Link | 0 comments

All Things Rhode Island

From Margaret Nell, a quickguide to the recent Massachussetts case saying Rhode Island gay couples may marry there:

Decision at:
http://www.glad.org/marriage/Cote-Whitacre/9_29_06.pdf
All case documents: http://www.glad.org/marriage/Cote-Whitacre/cote_documents.shtml

GLAD’s guide for RI couples: http://www.glad.org/rights/Marriage_Guide_for_RI_Couples.pdf

Some folks have expressed a hope that Gov. Mitt Romney would appeal (the attorney general refuses to do so). Gov. Romney’s response:

http://www2.nationalreview.com/corner/92906WMRAGLetter.pdf

posted by maggie at 10:59 PM | Link | 1 comments